Catholic School Bans Myspace

[Addendum]

I'm saying that a school has NO AUTHORITY over a student once that student LEAVES SCHOOL GROUNDS.

Public or private.

What a student does in their parent's house is not the concern of the school.

If it's a boarding school, it's a completely different situation, because the students actually live at the school

 

[SentinelMind]

The private school has the right to dismiss or accept students for any reason they want (as long as its doesn't violate Due Process or any other laws). Myspace isn't just a "private-in-your-house" matter. It's a popular website accessible to anyone. The school has a right to choose to expel a student if they don't want students who publicly advertise themselves on myspace. The school has a right to protect its reputation and not let it be tarnished by students who embarass themselves publicly. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that a private school couldn't suspend a student that went on CNN and trashed the private school? The same with myspace. The point I'm making is that if the school can expel the student for that reason, then yes, the school, in a sense, does have authority over what the student does off grounds, if the student wants to remain a student in that private school.

 

[Addendum]

I don't understand your argument.

What is so hard to understand?

When a student is on school grounds, they are under the authority of the school. If the school has a dress code policy, then the student has to follow it. If the school has restricted access to the internet on school computers, the student has to follow those restrictions when using the school computer.

Are you with me so far?

When a student leaves school grounds at the end of the school day, that is when the authority of the school ceases. If the student wants to wear clothing that goes against the school's dress code policy, then the student can do so.

With regard to the internet, if the student uses the internet in a public library, they aren't under the authority of the school's policy, they're under the authority of the public library and the internet restrictions, if any, that that library has.

If the student uses the internet at their parent's house, they aren't under the restriction of the school's policy regarding the internet, nor are they under the authority of the public library's policy, they are under the authority of their parents and whatever internet policy that their parent's have established.

If the parents allow their child to have a myspace page, the parent's authority supercedes the authority of the school WHEN THE CHILD IS IN THEIR OWN HOME.

If the school is a boarding school, where the student not only attends class but lives on the school grounds, then even when not in class, the student is still under the authority of the school.

How is that so ****ing hard to understand?

 

[SentinelMind]

Maybe I care about semantics too much, but if a private school can withdraw attendance based on what student does publicly off-campus, then...uhm...they do have authority. Sorry, a private school that wants to nurture a certain moral lifestyle can dismiss a student if they behaved a certain way publicly that could tarnish the school's image. You keep saying "school can go hang" in so many ways, but what is your definition of authority, if the private school can dismiss the student for what he or she does publicly? The private school can do what's necessary to protects it public reptuation. Myspace is a website available to entire public. It doesn't matter if the person created myspace from home. The information is available to anyone with internet access.

 

[Addendum]

The school can dismiss a student for what they do ON SCHOOL GROUNDS.

 

[SentinelMind]

I don't see how a private school doesn't have the right to dismiss a student that publicly tarnish its image? How can a private school be bound to keep a student that publicly embarrases the institution?

 

[Addendum]

When did the school become more important than the parent? The school is not the one actually raising the child. The parents are. Their authority is greater than that of the schools'.

What do you mean "publicly tarnish it's image"? Does that mean voicing an opinion of dissent with regard to a school policy? Voicing their objection to a course of action taken by the school that could be viewed as illegal?

 

[Kyalesyin]

Wow. Thats pretty extreme. I don't think they could get away with that here.

Saying that, they've blocked lj in my college, so I've got nothing to do except the hype.

 

[Addendum]

Wow. Thats pretty extreme. I don't think they could get away with that here.

Saying that, they've blocked lj in my college, so I've got nothing to do except the hype.

Until you go home on a weekend, or during break. Then the school's block doesn't apply to your home

 

[Showtime]

The only course of action the school should be allowed to take is whether or not Myspace is allowed on their in-house computers. Other than that, they are really pushing the envelope.

 

[JStorm]

Two things.

First, a student I mentor was banned from MySpace by his parents and forced to delete his account. When I approached his parents to ask them about their reasons, they coudln't give me a direct answer other than they are worried about predators. I couldn't argue because said student is not my child. Is this right or wrong? I don't know.

Second, as for the school issues I've read over the last three pages, most schools, like my high school, do have the "right" to control students when said students are off campus. If these schools are like mine, I had to sign a contract and uphold the school rules when off campus. For example, if I was caught at an R-rated movie, I could be suspended. I didn't adhere to most rules as I believe my relationship with Christ is MY relationship and no one else's. So, in said schools defenses, they do have a "right," so to speak; but it is rather weird if you asked me.

 

[Matt]

So, are you arguing the school cannot withdraw enrollment from that student? What I'm arguing is that if parents think the private school is going overboard, then they can remove their student and tuition. The school should certainly be allowed to expel the student if it believes its in its interest.

The parents paid for a service. That service is to educate their children. Not to raise them when they are out of the confines of the school. The school has no right to accept the parent's money and then try to dictate something that is beyond their control with the threat of indefinite suspension.

 

[Darthphere]

Second, as for the school issues I've read over the last three pages, most schools, like my high school, do have the "right" to control students when said students are off campus. If these schools are like mine, I had to sign a contract and uphold the school rules when off campus. For example, if I was caught at an R-rated movie, I could be suspended. I didn't adhere to most rules as I believe my relationship with Christ is MY relationship and no one else's. So, in said schools defenses, they do have a "right," so to speak; but it is rather weird if you asked me.

Than your school is clearly overstepping their boundaries and should be called out on such an action. If your parents allowed you to go see an R rated movie, what the school thinks is utterly and completely irrelevant.

 

[Addendum]

I went to a college like that. They kept pressing me to sign some "off-campus" policy, and I flat out told them "If I do something illegal, then I should be kicked out of school, correct?" The school said "of course". I then asked them to point out one thing on that list that is illegal.

They didn't, so I saw no reason to sign. I then graduated.

 

[Matt]

Second, as for the school issues I've read over the last three pages, most schools, like my high school, do have the "right" to control students when said students are off campus. If these schools are like mine, I had to sign a contract and uphold the school rules when off campus. For example, if I was caught at an R-rated movie, I could be suspended. I didn't adhere to most rules as I believe my relationship with Christ is MY relationship and no one else's. So, in said schools defenses, they do have a "right," so to speak; but it is rather weird if you asked me.

You signed a contract, though I doubt it would be valid if you really tried to fight it for two reasons

1) You are a minor and therefore are unable to legally sign anything.

2) There is inherrent coercion on the school's part as they have power over you.

 

[JStorm]

Than your school is clearly overstepping their boundaries and should be called out on such an action. If your parents allowed you to go see an R rated movie, what the school thinks is utterly and completely irrelevant.

I totally agree.

I just wanted to point out the school kind of has a "right" because of said contract.

My parents put up a fight for me throughout my high school years.

For example, I threw a huge Prom party, and when the dean caught wind of it, he pressured me to cancel because it promoted "bad behavior." My father flipped out and had a "sit-down" with the dean. I had the party, and invited the deans hot daughter.

 

[Darthphere]

You signed a contract, though I doubt it would be valid if you really tried to fight it for two reasons

1) You are a minor and therefore are unable to legally sign anything.

2) There is inherrent coercion on the school's part as they have power over you.

Right, and in loco parentis wouldnt apply to #1 either Matt.

Yeah, thats one thing I was careful of doing back in school, reading voer exactly what it was they wanted me to sign.

 

[Darthphere]

I totally agree.

I just wanted to point out the school kind of has a "right" because of said contract.

My parents put up a fight for me throughout my high school years.

For example, I threw a huge Prom party, and when the dean caught wind of it, he pressured me to cancel because it promoted "bad behavior." My father flipped out and had a "sit-down" with the dean. I had the party, and invited the deans hot daughter.

Did you **** her? Because that would be a great ending.

 

[Mee]

That'll teach those emos. Now they'll have to find real friends.

 

[JStorm]

You signed a contract, though I doubt it would be valid if you really tried to fight it for two reasons

1) You are a minor and therefore are unable to legally sign anything.

2) There is inherrent coercion on the school's part as they have power over you.

Yeah, I'm sure the contract wouldn't "hold-up" in court. But, yes, I did sign a contract.

I lived by my parents rules, and like the post I just wrote, they came to my side when something was ridiculous.

Side story of my previous post, upon graduation, the dean hugged me and thanked me for being a "rebel with a cause." I was like, then what was the reason for the stupid contract?!

 

[JStorm]

Did you **** her? Because that would be a great ending.

I don't think my girl friend, at the time, would have approved.

 

[Darthphere]

I don't think my girl friend, at the time, would have approved.

Threesome?

 

[Matt]

I don't think my girl friend, at the time, would have approved.

Dude, from now on when you tell that story...end it with ****ing the daughter. Just such a better ending

 

[JStorm]

Threesome?

Dude, from now on when you tell that story...end it with ****ing the daughter. Just such a better ending

Riiiiiiight. And had I did that, some nut would have posted "way to live like Christ."

Besides, why lie about something just to make myself look "better?"

 

[Darthphere]

Riiiiiiight. And had I did that, some nut would have posted "way to live like Christ."

Besides, why lie about something just to make myself look "better?"

It doesn't make you look better, its just a better ending.